Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Sun, 25 May 2008 23:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EFE3A68AC; Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B989F3A68AC; Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7DANqf8Pb50A; Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kilo.rtfm.com (unknown [74.95.2.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B963A680C; Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kilo.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kilo.rtfm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C071E2A7B38; Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 16:46:46 -0700
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
In-Reply-To: <20080525225416.E5B492A78AF@kilo.rtfm.com>
References: <20080525020040.4DE5A5081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <483991AE.9060906@gmx.net> <20080525182946.DF50C2A74DA@kilo.rtfm.com> <4839C06C.5010506@gmx.net> <20080525225416.E5B492A78AF@kilo.rtfm.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Message-Id: <20080525234646.C071E2A7B38@kilo.rtfm.com>
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>, secdir@mit.edu, draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
At Sun, 25 May 2008 15:54:16 -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > At Sun, 25 May 2008 22:39:24 +0300, > Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > > > Hi Ekr, > > > > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > At Sun, 25 May 2008 19:19:58 +0300, > > > Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Ekr, > > >> > > >> Eric Rescorla wrote: > > >> > > >>> $Id: draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07-rev.txt,v 1.1 2008/05/24 15:03:19 ekr Exp $ > > >>> > > >>> TECHNICAL > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> S 4.2. > > >>> which a Location Recipient (LR) can use to retrieve LI. A location > > >>> URI provided by a LIS can be assumed to be globally-addressable; that > > >>> is, anyone in possession of the URI can access the LIS. However, > > >>> this does not in any way suggest that the LIS is bound to reveal the > > >>> location associated with the location URI. This issue is deemed out > > >>> > > >>> I don't understand this point. anyone in possession of the URI can > > >>> access the URI but the LIS isn't required to reveal it? Those > > >>> seem kind of contradictory. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Compare this with a HTTP URL where you might know it but still there are > > >> access policies that control access. > > >> Possession does not necessarily mean that you can always get the location. > > >> > > > > > > OK. That makes sense. Perhaps rewrite: > > > "access the LIS and request the location associated with the URI. > > > However, this this does not imply that the LIS is bound to service > > > the request. For instance, the LIS might reject the request for > > > access control reasons." > > > > > > > > Sounds good. > > > > > > > > > >>> S 4.3.1. > > >>> Devices that establish VPN connections for use by other devices > > >>> inside a LAN or other closed network could serve as a LIS, that > > >>> implements the HELD protocol, for those other Devices. Devices > > >>> within the closed network are not necessarily able to detect the > > >>> presence of the VPN and rely on the VPN device. To this end, a VPN > > >>> device should provide the address of the LIS server it provides, in > > >>> response to discovery queries, rather than passing such queries > > >>> through the VPN tunnel. > > >>> > > >>> How do you envision this happening? Isn't this going to require > > >>> changing every VPN protocol? I think some more text would be > > >>> appropriate here... > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> It requires location information to be obtained before the tunnel is setup. > > >> > > > > > > OK, but I still don't understand how this is going to work. Say that > > > I'm on a local network with a DHCP server and the VPN server is a couple > > > of hops away. How does the VPN device "provide the address of the LIS > > > server" to me? > > > > > > > > > > > When you operate a network and you want this stuff to work then you have > > to consider this aspect. > > In the past a few folks have suggested to write a BCP about how > > different deployments may deal with this aspect but I believe it is far > > too early todo so for a BCP. > > The problem is that I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be solved > by the network operator. In the example I described, it sounds to > me like new protocol work may be required. > > > > >> The reference points to the device. What the Target uses this reference > > >> either for itself (if it wants to learn it's own location) or (more > > >> likely) it forwards that URI to someone else, for example to a PSAP. > > >> > > > > > > OK, but then what protocol is spoken over that URI? (see my > > > comments on S 8 below). > > > > > > > > > > > The answer is: > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-00.txt > > What's the status of that document? Oh, and doesn't this need to be a normative ref, then? -Ekr _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delive… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-lo… Richard Barnes
- RE: [Geopriv] [secdir] Review ofdraft-ietf-geopri… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Eric Rescorla
- RE: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- RE: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Mary Barnes
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… TSG
- SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geop… Lawrence Conroy
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Eric Rescorla
- RE: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Dawson, Martin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Dave Cridland
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Joe Abley
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Frank Ellermann
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Fred Baker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST John C Klensin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Fred Baker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST John C Klensin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dean Willis
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Robert Sparks
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dave Cridland
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Iljitsch van Beijnum
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Eric Gray
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Julian Reschke
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Keith Moore
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST Eric Gray
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity C. M. Heard
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Keith Moore
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Eric Gray
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Spencer Dawkins
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Ralph Droms
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity John Levine
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity John Leslie
- RE: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Mary Barnes